CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS

CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS

CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-84-1302-003-7 DOI: 10.14198/EURAU18alicante Editor: Javier Sánchez Merina Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Titulación de Arquitectura ESCUELA POLITÉCNICA SUPERIOR Alicante University Carretera San Vicente del Raspeig s/n 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig. Alicante (SPAIN) eurau@ua.es

An alternative reading of architectural design studio 1 1. MEF University, Department of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey, aydemirz@mef.edu.tr Synopsis Pedagogical experiments in the second half of the twentieth century are regarded as evidences of thresholds in architectural design education. Many traditional approaches including apprenticeship, reproduction of existing forms and structures are left behind; and many novel approaches became valid including spatial investigations, using tools and new technology, critical thinking, non-linearity, social and political engagement, interdisciplinarity, participation and questioning the role of architecture. From this point, this study aims to illuminate how these pedagogical experiments challenged and transformed the domain of architecture and beyond. In order to address this transformation, the study presents and discusses the pedagogical experiments through the framework of five themes: systematicity, linearity, simultaneity, participation and complexity. Key words: Architectural education, Design pedagogy, Design studio, Pedagogical experiments. 116

1. Background The present form of the design studio traces its origin back to the Ecole des Beaux- Arts and the Bauhaus. Although the Ecole des Beaux-Arts was established in the seventeenth century; it maintained a stance against apprenticeship in the nineteenth century (Cret, 1941). The origin of academic studio culture coincides with this position, requiring learning by doing as a principle focus of architectural education (Anthony, 2011, p. 223). Design studio culture was introduced to North American schools in the early twentieth century by Paris-trained professors. 'Over 500 Americans attended the Ecole des Beaux-Arts between 1850 and 1968' and they brought the design studio tradition to North America (Anthony, 2011, p. 224). The German Bauhaus School (1919-1933) replaced the influence of Ecole des Beaux-Arts with a design studio inspired by the machine, the mass production and the modern technology (Anthony, 2011, p. 224). In the second half of the twentieth century, several pedagogical experiments across the globe played a crucial role in shaping architectural discourse and practice. Through these experiments a variety of strategies and tactics had been developed which then influenced the field of architecture and led the following contributors (Colomina et al., 2012). These evidences shows that it is critical to understand and rethink the pedagogical experiments for revealing their influence on architecture and other disciplines. 2. Research framework This paper forms part of a wider study 1 concerning a comparative analysis of experiments, practices, and positions in architectural design studio. This part of the study covers a reading of the pedagogical experiments from the second half of the twentieth century through five recurrent themes. Selection of the themes was based on the repeating patterns revealed within the scope of the doctoral research and they can be listed as systematicity, linearity, simultaneity, participation and complexity. First, methodical approaches including medium, tools and structural organisations are grouped under. Second, sequential approaches concerned with the process and temporal subjects are grouped under. Third, simultaneous activities and contexts applied at the same time are grouped under Simultaneity. Fourth, participatory processes including actors, activities and intentions are grouped under. And lastly, subjects including multiple dimensions such as discovery and atmosphere are grouped under Complexity. 3. Themes For understanding the precedent pedagogical experiments and their impact, forty-one selected case studies from Radical Pedagogies 2 research project are listed, summarised and categorised according to their timeframe, 1 Experiments, Practices, and Positions in Architectural Design Studio is a PhD study by the author. 2 Radical Pedagogies is an ongoing multi-year collaborative research project led by Beatriz Colomina with a team of Ph.D. students of the School of Architecture at Princeton University. 117

performers, institutions, tactics, and their relation to themes of this study (Fig. 1). Below, the impact of these experiments on the domain of architecture and related fields are explained under five categories. First of all, tactics of learning with tools can be considered systematic regarding their methodological character. There are some common characteristics such as using physical environments for the spatial investigations; and virtual environments for computer-aided design researches. Model research then extended to virtual environments; and initial attempts in computer-aided design are realised in Harvard GSD pioneering to an innovation such as GIS software. Second, linear and non-linear tactics were one of the major concerns of pedagogical experiments. Some schools aimed to change curricular structures through non-linear approaches; such as emphasising design process, forming vertical studio structures, promoting remote teaching methods and experimentation. For instance, Architectural Association developed vertical studio teaching with the unit system; Open University promoted remote teaching methods; WSPA set up a non-hierarchical model among students and teachers; IAUS suggested an open plan for students to develop their course schedule. Third, simultaneity indicated social and political engagements to design studio. Some groups gave rise to change the focus of architecture from sole form-making to a new kind of architecture that is simultaneously connecting with society. In other words, they were combining the content and the context in different realms. For instance, FAU USP was linking form-making to political change; and La Tendenza focused on being socially and politically engaged (Bottazzi, 2012, p.104) with the matters of architecture. Fourth, several tactics emphasised participation among various actors, in different forms with multiple aims in the history of architectural education; and interdisciplinarity and participatory actions were specifically underlined within these tactics. For instance, Ulm School, Arezzo, University of Stuttgart, MIT and ILA&UD had pedagogical experiments with a collaboration of international multidisciplinary groups in which international dialogue, diversity of participants and heteronomy were the main concerns. was not only significant in the context but in the actions as well. For example, CIAM members opened their ateliers to students; AD, AA and Polyark organised a bus trip for a two-weeks long live project; Kenzo Tange initiated an architectural laboratory; Buckminster Fuller realised workshops within a network of institutions; the NER group approached to city as a temporary and mobile living organism; TU Berlin and Cornell University focused on city as an architectural laboratory; and Pratt Institute School of Architecture employed design-build projects. 118

Year Performer Institution, Place Tactic Theme 1972 Emilio Ambasz The new domestic landscape exhibition at MoMA Discussing design process with symbols and social critique Simultaneity 1952-1959 Enrico Peressutti Princeton Confronting with the field 1971-1979 Vittorio Giorgini Pratt Institute Learning by building 1951-1965 Pietro Belluschi and György Kepes MIT 1976-1983 Aldo Rossi La Escuelita 1947-1952 Ernesto Nathan Rogers, et al. Instituto de Arquitectura y Urbanismo 1964-1984 Howard Fischer, et al. LCGSA Harvard GSD 1967-1985 Nicholas Negroponte, Leon Grossier, Jerome Wiesner The Architecture Machine Group and The Media Lab MIT 1964-1985 John Hejduk The Cooper Union 1951-1957 The Texas Rangers University of Texas Austin 1965-1975 IAUS and Princeton 1955-1970 R. Buckminster Fuller 1933-1957 1972-1980 1972-1976 Josef and Anni Albers, et al. The Center for Independent Living Southern Illinois Institute of Carbondale Black Mountain College University of Berkeley Facultad de Arquitectura, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Encouraging collaboration of visual arts and science Experimenting without control over curricula Combining pedagogy with research, public institutions and local companies Using new media, innovating interfaces Developing new methodologies Supporting the independent and personal voice of the students Using spatial investigations as a device Promoting open-plan for studio organisation Organising a network of workshops Emphasising process against results Developing design concepts for impaired mobility, sight and hearing Manifesting for a new model with social and political aspects Complexity Simultaneity 1952-1972 Alberto Cruz, Godofredo Iommi, Claudio Girola Escuela e Instituto de Arquitectura PUCV Using lived experiences to underline plastic aspects of architecture 1943-1963 Tibor Weiner 1971-1975 Taller Total 1962-1969 Vilanova Artigas Escuela de Arquitectura, Universidad de Chile Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba Faculdade de Arquitectura e Urbanismo da Universidade de Sao Paulo FAU USP Correlating image and project, method and purpose Focusing on changing role of architecture in the developing areas of the world Linking form-making and intention to political change Complexity Complexity Simultaneity 1948-1973 Kenzo Tange Tange Lab Initiating an architecture laboratory 1975-1981 Katrin Adam, et al. The Women's School of Planning and Architecture WSPA 1959-1968 Enzo Frateili HfG Ulm 1957-1968 1976 1974 Alexei Gutnov, the NER Group and Giancarlo De Carlo Aldo Rossi, Bruno Reichlin, Fabio Reinhart, Eraldo Consolascio Alvaro Siza and the SAAL("Local Mobile Support Device") 1971-1990 Alvin Boyarsky 1973 Peter Murray, Cedric Price Moscow Institute of Architecture MARKHI and Triennale di Milano ETH Zurich Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade do Porto The Architectural Association AD/AA/Polyark Learning from students Forming an international multidisciplinary group Seeing the city as a living organism Assembling the images of collective memories, places, and building Bridging between the local organisations and architecture with students Promoting vertical studio teaching Triggering a dialogue between architecture schools and local communities through a live project 119

Year Performer Institution, Place Tactic Theme 1964-1990 Frei Otto 1953-1968 Inge Aicher-Scholl, Otl Aicher, Max Bill, Tomas Maldonado 1965-1977 Oswald Mathias Ungers 1963-1973 1963 Archizoom Associati, 9999, Gianni Pettena, Superstudio, UFO, and Ziggurat Ludovico Quaroni, Giancarlo De Carlo, Aldo Rossi, Manfredo Tafuri 1976-2003 Giancarlo de Carlo 1964-1971 Organising a collaboration with sociology, economics and geography 1961,1963-1979 Leonardo Mosso and Laura Castagno Bruno Zevi Institute for Lightweight Structures at the University of Stuttgart (ILEK) Hochschule für Gestaltung (HfG) TU Berlin and Cornell University Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Facolta di Architettura The Arezzo Course International Laboratory of Architecture and Urban Design ILA&UD Politecnico di Torino Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia IUAV and Universita di Roma 1969 Utopia e/o Rivoluzione Politecnico di Torino 1967-1970 Guido Canella Politecnico di Milano 1959-1961 Carlo Cocchia Politecnico di Milano 1949-1956 CIAM Summer School Venice, Italy 1976 The Open University 37th Biennale di Venezia 1963-1971 Aldo Rossi Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia IUAV and the Politecnico di Milano Figure 1. Providing a collaboration between architects, engineers, biologists, anthropologists, and historians Working on scalelessness Considering city as an architectural laboratory Occupying the city plazas with temporary installations Proposing interventions for real sites Promoting working on dynamic and virtual environments Re-interpreting of historical examples Questioning the role of architectural education for a revolution Making macroeconomic and macro urban analyses in the field Making in-depth analysis of existing buildings Increasing foreign exchange programs and participation of practitioner architects Promoting remote teaching methods Transforming design studio as a research device Complexity Fifth, the complex role of architectural education and organisation of studies were emphasised. For instance, at the exhibition entitled Utopia e/p Rivoluzion, there were two main opinions about the role of architecture: revolution and intensive use of technology. Moreover, La Tendenza aimed to enhance the discipline s functional role within the contemporary technological and socioeconomic condition (Scott, p.49) with the belief that architecture had a political role to improve and shape the society (Bottazzi, 2012, p.104). 4. Findings Listed pedagogical experiments are then graphically represented on a timeline according to five categories (Fig. 2). This diagram shows that participation is the most popular theme since the late 1940s. It is followed by systematicity which is mostly emphasised between the 1950s and the 1990s. is the earliest theme based on the traces from the 1930s. Complexity is a rarely employed between the 1940s and the mid-1980s. Simultaneity is the least preferred theme that is emphasised between the 1960s and the 1980s. 120

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Figure 2. It is important to acknowledge that the majority of pedagogical experiments were employed between the 1960s and the 1970s including primarily participation and systematicity by confronting with real life situations, learning by building, providing collaboration of visual arts and science, including public institutions and local companies, using new media, innovating interfaces, developing new methodologies, supporting the independent and personal voice of the students, organising workshops, using spatial investigations and live projects, forming international multidisciplinary groups, promoting to work on dynamic and virtual environments, and encouraging foreign exchange programs. 5. Bibliography Complexity Simultaneity ANTHONY, Kathryn H, 2011. Design Studios. In: Companion to urban design. London/New York: Routledge, p. 223-237. ISBN 978-0-415-55364-3. BOTTAZZI, Roberto, 2012. La Tendenza: Italian Architectures 1965-1985, Architectural Review, vol. 232, no. 1386, p. 104-106. ISSN 0003-861X. COLOMINA, Beatriz, Esther CHOI, Ignacio G. GALAN and Anna-Maria MEISTER, 2012. Radical pedagogies, Architectural Review, vol. 232, no. 1388, p. 78-82. ISSN 0003-861X. COLOMINA, Beatriz, Britt EVERSOLE, Ignacio G. GALAN, Evangelos KOTSIORIS, Anna-Maria MEISTER and Federica VANNUCCHI, n.d. Case Studies [online]. Radical Pedagogies [accessed 3 April 2018]. Retrieved from: http://radical-pedagogies.com/search-cases. CRET, Paul P, 1941. The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and architectural education, Journal of the American Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 3-15. ISSN 1544-9890. DICK, Walter, Lou CAREY and James O. CAREY, 2005. The systematic design of instruction. New York: Pearson. ISBN 978-0-20541274-2. GROBMAN, Yasha Jacob, Abraham YEZIORO and Isaac G. CAPELUTO, 2010. Non-Linear Architectural Design Process, International Journal of Architectural Computing, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 41-53. ISSN 1478-0771. SCOTT, Felicity D, 2004. On the Counter-Design of Institutions: Emilio Ambasz's Universitas Symposium at MoMA, Grey Room, vol. -, no. 14, p. 46-77. ISSN 1526-3819. 121

Biography Ayşe Zeynep Aydemir. Architect and studio tutor with a research practice on architectural design learning. She received BArch (2008) and MSc in Architectural Design (2011) degrees from Istanbul Technical University. She taught architectural design studios at ITU School of Architecture between 2010-2017. She's been a visiting PhD candidate as a TUBITAK scholar at KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture in Ghent and Brussels between 2014-2016 and worked as a studio tutor in International Master of Architecture at the same faculty during Fall 2015. She completed her jointly supervised Ph.D. entitled Experiments, Practices and Positions in Architectural Design Studio at KU Leuven and ITU in 2017, supported by ITU Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit. Currently, she teaches at MEF University Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, where she coordinates the Architectural Design Graduate Programme. Her research and teaching interests include new pedagogies and new production techniques, living laboratories, design-build studios, bottom-up approaches, co-create, discovery and experimenting in architectural design studios 122